Re: Workaround for wrapping loadaverage

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

(PLease don't remove people from Cc:.  Just do reply-to-all).

Patrick Mau <mau@oscar.ping.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 01:27:07AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Patrick Mau <mau@oscar.ping.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >  We can only account for 1024 runnable processes, since we have 22 bits
> > >  precision, I would like to suggest a patch to calc_load in kernel/timer.c
> > 
> > It's better than wrapping to zero...
> > 
> > Why do we need 11 bits after the binary point?
> 
> I tried various other combinations, the most interesting alternative was
> 8 bits precision. The exponential values would be:
> 
> 1 / e (5/60) * 256
> 235.53
> 
> 1 / e (5/300) * 256
> 251.76
> 
> 1 / e (5/900) * 256
> 254.58
> 
> If you would use 236, 252 and 255 the last to load calculations would
> get optimized into register shifts during calculation. The precision
> would be bad, but I personally don't mind loosing the fraction.

What would be the impact on the precision if we were to use 8 bits of
fraction?

An upper limit of 1024 tasks sounds a bit squeezy.  Even 8192 is a bit
uncomfortable.  Maybe we should just reimplement the whole thing, perhaps
in terms of tuples of 32-bit values: 32 bits each side of the binary point?